Skip to main content

About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
in michigan, democratic caller. go ahead. >> caller: yes. i have a two-part question. i was wondering, for one, i'm going to be retiring here in another 12 years but i'm not going to have social security until probably the age of 70. i'm 50 now. and i was wondering, right now if i was to lose my job for some unforeseen reason, i will lose my benefits. i have the option, as an employee to keep my benefits at a about $800 cost. but when senators and congressman step out of their position, i'm not mistaken, they still have their insurance for life. and then the second part of the question, that i am posing is, i believe they are going to get a 3% pay raise every year and i have never seen in my lifetime them stop that. i was wondering if that is something could be possibly done? >> host: isabel sawhill. >> guest: i assume what you're talking about is that if you were to lose your job you would lose your benefits, you mean primarily your health care benefits. and you're right. you would lose them. under the affordable care act once it is implemented in 2014, that would enable you to go on an excha
legislative session. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. order in the senate, please. the senator from michigan. mr. levin: we hope that cloture will be voted now. we've disposed of 119 amendments to this bill. i talked to the majority leader. and if we do vote cloture tonight, which of course senator mccain and i hope we will, we're still going to try to clear some additional amendments using the same process we've used up to now. and we would hope that we could clear some additional amendments right up to the time of final passage. we've asked the majority leader, hopefully we can get to final passage tomorrow at some point. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 hereby move to bring to a close debate on s. 3254 for fiscal year 2013 for military activities of the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes. signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum has been waived. the question is is it the sense of the senate that the debat
at that time. i took a look at it and when i got into the hospital in michigan, one of the fellows i met was modeled -- bob dole and we became good friends even to this day. i asked him what are your plans. and he, without hesitating, said i'm going to be a clerk. after that i'm going to run for the state house, first opening in the commerce. that's where i'm going. i figured that's a good idea. so i went to law school and became assistant prosecutor when the territorial losses became available i ran for that office and when the state could came along i got to congress a little ahead of bob. >> you were in the territorial legislature then before you came here. >> two terms in the house and in the senate. >> and then came here as a member of the house and who did you come here without that time? >> only one member of that time. >> you mentioned senator dole and the fact you were then in the hospital with him in michigan. it's amazing that some of these friendships were formed long before any public service. he talks about being a friend of -- excuse me, the senator from wyoming, al simpso
on the university of michigan law school plan had been upheld into the very thing grutter v. bollinger that have followed the plan closely enough so the court was obliged to uphold it. even one justice, judge garza, who said he hated racial preference isn't about to strike them down said that he had no choice but to uphold this one has been under supreme court precedent. by the way, seven of the 16 justices disagreed and thought you could strike it down under the career precedent. so the case finds its way to the supreme court and it's likely to perhaps become the most important case in history on racial preferences. not so much because there's anything that extraordinary about this case, but the composition of the court has changed his 2003 cases which could be fairly green light to racial preferences, very large racial preferences as long as they're camouflaged beneath the kind of complicated, holistic thing. holistic is like the word or sprinkle holy water over preferences. so here's how it worked at the university of texas. they have an academic index for people outside the top 10%. they hav
into prime confident it will be but with university of michigan and other libraries storing millions of books, that they will be packed and i feel that resolution will happen because all of those works with those royalties are circulated through policy toward disgruntled. >> clap its conclude with the fare battles between the the u.s. between amazon and coucal but the intention of our founding fathers who understood the importance of a democracy is so with article brought back one to grant power not from line number three but the exclusive right to which is their language. but the founding fathers with states, a pate trends, universities and corporations that could compromise the independence of their work and did suggest a copyright would insure the first range to further guarantee a full range of perspectives in the marketplace of ideas. when i was 14, i also read a story that has stuck with me and comes back to me. a former and he would move little slow but he still made it. the farmer thought so far so good. i will keep cutting then and the horse would take them to market. just when the f
're just doing it the way the university of michigan law school did it, and so we're okay. there are a number of distinctions between the cases, though, that we think will help the, you know, the now-more skeptical about racial preferences court strike down tease preferences. they wouldn't have to overrule the grutter case to do so, because the grutter case justice o'connor articulated some principles that were supposed to limit the size and duration of racial preferences to avoid abuses, but she department really enforce them. -- she didn't really enforce them. but they remain on the books. you're supposed to pursue race-neutral alternatives before you resort to race. well, texas did. they have this 10% plan. they get a lot of racial diversity and other diversity from the 10% plan. did they really need to use individual racial preferences on top of it? that's one argument in her favor. another argument is the court has said no racial balancing, meaning you cannot try to mirror in your state's university's composition the racial proportions of the statewide population. tha
was not even elected vice president. he was a michigan. jimmy carter from georgia. ronald reagan from california. first george bush, texas by a connecticut. bill clinton from arkansas, and the second bush from texas. so 2008 is in some ways a watershed election. it is this 40 year period of sun belt dominance. and there were issues that are critical in the politics that develop, that came out of the sun belt. they tended to have a conservative task to them. they tended to be oriented around history of strong national defense, of an opposition to unions and a defense of free enterprise politics. and also it's in the sun belt, in the south and southwest that we see the rise of what we see by the 1970s is becoming to talk about as the religious right, the rise of evangelical involved in the clinical process in new and important ways. so thurmond was at the forefront of all of those issues in his own politics. national defense, he was a staunch anti-communist. he played an important role in right wing anti-communist populist politics in the late '50s and early 1960s. it's one of the thing
scoring based upon race. if they do that, they might run afoul of the michigan problem. assigning numbers to it, which creates another type of problem. it is possible that ms. fisher might have been admitted to a summer program under which texas and that the number of people who are not admitted to regular programs. it's not clear to me whether she actually tried to get into that program. in any event, she was not actually admitted it. one of the arguments that she made is it is impossible to reconstruct what would've happened. and that maybe this is a lawsuit which could prevent the university of texas from going forward with this program in the future. the problem from ms. fisher's perspective is she has already completed the university. this is not a class action. she has not sought an injunction against future use of the program because she would have no standing. the only thing she is seeking at this time is monetary damages. the damages she has claimed as far as i am aware that she paid an application fee of $100 or something of that range. and she wants that feedback. we are not cl
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8